Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[zstd] No debug postfix. No renaming of CMake config files. #22822

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Feb 16, 2022

Conversation

dg0yt
Copy link
Contributor

@dg0yt dg0yt commented Jan 27, 2022

  • What does your PR fix?

    Restore upstream's original filenames.

    Downstreams are unaware of vcpkg's debug postfix. That's why there are some patches.

    Unfortunately, downstreams are also unaware of zstd's _static postfix which is only used on Windows, when building with CMake. This PR remove that postfix, too.

  • Which triplets are supported/not supported? Have you updated the CI baseline?

    unchanged, no

  • Does your PR follow the maintainer guide?

    Yes. The port didn't.

  • If you have added/updated a port: Have you run ./vcpkg x-add-version --all and committed the result?

    Yes.

@JackBoosY JackBoosY added the category:port-bug The issue is with a library, which is something the port should already support label Jan 28, 2022
Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You have modified or added at least one vcpkg.json where a "license" field is missing.
If you feel able to do so, please consider adding a "license" field to the following files:

  • ports/blosc/vcpkg.json
  • ports/boost-iostreams/vcpkg.json
  • ports/elfutils/vcpkg.json
  • ports/libwandio/vcpkg.json
  • ports/qt5-base/vcpkg.json

Valid values for the license field are listed at https://spdx.org/licenses/

@dg0yt dg0yt marked this pull request as ready for review January 28, 2022 07:11
@dg0yt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dg0yt commented Jan 28, 2022

We should really consider patching out the _static postfix from the windows builds. It is not used on other platforms because it only serves to avoid a clash between import lib and static lib name when building both (which vcpkg doesn't). Downstreams generally always look for the zstd lib name, but they don't look for zstd_static, and even in vcpkg patching turned out to be incomplete.

@dg0yt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dg0yt commented Jan 28, 2022

PS this is a drive-by from testing gdal's coming cmake build system which only looks for zstd in FindZSTD.cmake.

@dg0yt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dg0yt commented Jan 28, 2022

We should really consider patching out the _static postfix from the windows builds.

This would probably also reduce the amount of patching from individual Find modules to zstd config. Where zstd config suffers from using different target names for static vs. shared.
Example: #22834

@Neumann-A
Copy link
Contributor

Neumann-A commented Jan 28, 2022

We should really consider patching out the _static postfix from the windows builds.

No. We are not in charge of upstream naming. Add a wrapper which does a find_library call before the find_package call.
If downstream doesn't correctly abide to upstream naming we have to fix downstream usage.

using different target names for static vs. shared.

add an interface target (not ALIAS!) without the suffix which links to one of those depending on library linkage. You can probably use a genex which tests for the existence of one of the targets and use the other otherwise.,

@dg0yt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dg0yt commented Jan 28, 2022

My proposal to remove _static aims at two things:

  • Reduce patching.
  • Avoid unexpect build results (not using zstd or using system zstd).

We should really consider patching out the _static postfix from the windows builds.

No. We are not in charge of upstream naming. .... If downstream doesn't correctly abide to upstream naming we have to fix downstream usage.

I fully support the general policy.
However, zstd seems to offer different build systems, and AFAICS only the cmake one adds the _static postfix (and only for windows). So downstreams are not so wrong.
In addition, updating the existing zstd patches left the impression that vcpkg contributors are unaware of the issue.

Add a wrapper which does a find_library call before the find_package call.

There is no official CMake module so it would be a wrapper for what?
ZSTD_LIBRARY_RELEASE or Zstd_LIBRARY?

The wrapper also doesn't help with autotools.

using different target names for static vs. shared.

add an interface target (not ALIAS!) without the suffix which links to one of those depending on library linkage. You can probably use a genex which tests for the existence of one of the targets and use the other otherwise.

I have seen the genex, and it is fine.
What is the problem with the ALIAS? I use them in the cmake project include of the gdal-cmake PR. It turns out that CMake puts the imported target in the generated gdal config instead of the alias. This is nice, because the gdal config doesn't need to provide the alias again.
(I do see the problems with using them in a wrapper when facing CMake 3.4.)

@Neumann-A
Copy link
Contributor

However, zstd seems to offer different build systems, and AFAICS

donwstream as to put up with every possibility upstream supports. If they don't they are wrong. But there are reason to have different naming... simply people want to have all variants in one and the same directory which is only possible if the names are different.

qt5-base didn't have it.

I am aware of the issues but as far as I remembered somebody renamed the variant to the non static variant. So I didn't bother. Wasn't I the one who left the comment about CMAKE_DEBUG_SUFFIX breaking maintainer guides? I just didn't change that because I didn't want to fix the fallout of that change ;)
(But qt5 could also use pkg-config)

elfutils had it but doesn't support windows.

Wondering if that support statement should really be !MSVC instead. (Did I add that support statement?)

The wrapper also doesn't help with autotools.

Downstream should use pkg-config !? (Instead of doing a find_library call the autotools way. )

There is no official CMake module so it would be a wrapper for what?

Ok then no wrapper just manually fixing every FindZSTD|Findzstd or providing our own version. I wish vcpkg would support vcpkg based modules instead of the wrapper. The main reason this isn't done because ras0219 says that some ports bomb CMAKE_MODULE_PATH by set(CMAKE_MODULE_PATH "myfunnypath").

What is the problem with the ALIAS?

Doesn't have the same semantics as an IMPORTED target (for example you cannot promote an ALIAS to global). If you Wrap an IMPORTED targets always use an INTERFACE IMPORTED target und link the one you want to wrap (This is basically the Qt6 way). This way you can wrap different targets like e.g. a PkgConfig::ZSTD target.

@dg0yt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dg0yt commented Jan 28, 2022

Wasn't I the one who left the comment about CMAKE_DEBUG_SUFFIX breaking maintainer guides?

Yes. You also wrote:

# Removing it probably requires a vcpkg-cmake-wrapper.cmake to correct downstreams FindZSTD.cmake.

But actually the unexpected debug postfix created the the need for a wrapper. As does the _import postfix.

Downstream should use pkg-config !?

That's how I would patch. Generally, downstreams using autotools are really ambitiuous when it comes to MSVC support.

Sidenote: Even Find modules from CMake use pkg-config to get a hint for the prefix. But instead of using all information, they do their own lookup with a limited set of names...

Summary on _import postfix

Current state: We patch the world and don't tell downstreams.
Proposal A: We tell downstreams that they do it wrong, and in the meantime we continue to patch the world.
Proposal B: We patch the postfix out of zstd.

@JackBoosY
Copy link
Contributor

I think we should follow @Neumann-A suggestion since we have the policy that we shouldn't change the suffix which the upstream made.

@dg0yt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dg0yt commented Jan 28, 2022

@ras0219-msft What is your opinion on removing _static as an exception?

I could put that to another PR, but when it is merged separately, it will force another major rebuild on users.

@dg0yt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dg0yt commented Jan 29, 2022

FTR: The current state is ready for review, aligning the port with maintainer guidelines.

@PhoebeHui
Copy link
Contributor

I vote for removing _static, I don't like to add these patches for handling the case, according to the policy, this should be accepted in vcpkg.

I noticed it also cause issue #22817.

@dg0yt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dg0yt commented Jan 29, 2022

according to the policy, this should be accepted in vcpkg.

In particular:

Static and shared variants often should be renamed to a common scheme. This enables consumers to use a common name and be ignorant of the downstream linkage. This is safe because we only make one at a time available.

@ras0219-msft
Copy link
Contributor

ras0219-msft commented Feb 1, 2022

To summarize the current affairs as I see it:

  • The most important part of the relevant policy is ... we should not introduce a new name.. Specifically, we should NOT be introducing something outside the set of names that upstream uses (such as adding debug suffixes that don't exist otherwise).
  • Upstream provides multiple buildsystems with inconsistent naming. According to @dg0yt, the only way to get zstd_static is by using the CMake buildsystem on Windows -- other platforms and other buildsystems would have produced zstd for the same binary.
  • Upstream provides .pc files that always say -lzstd, even on Windows+static.
  • A vast number of consumers assume the library is named zstd

Given all that, I see renaming the binary from zstd_static to zstd as being the correct approach. I do not view this as a policy violation because upstream itself is inconsistent and zstd is definitely one of the names already in use. We are therefore not introducing any new names by this renaming and we are making the ecosystem much more uniform and reducing the amount of patching required in dependencies.

Because downstream libraries SHOULD support shared linking of zstd, this should not create any new problems or additional patching requirements -- it's a strict win.

Edit: The above is only addressing zlib_static -> zlib and doesn't talk about the debug suffix.

Obviously the debug suffix is against policy, since upstream doesn't ever produce zstdd without our meddling. Is anyone aware of which downstream FindZSTD.cmake files are referenced by

# Removing it probably requires a vcpkg-cmake-wrapper.cmake to correct downstreams FindZSTD.cmake

?

@ras0219-msft
Copy link
Contributor

Finally, one other drive-by comment: in addition to the binary names, we definitely need an INTERFACE target like @Neumann-A posted in #22822 (comment) -- the current schism in cmake target names is a nightmare for correctness in dependents.

@Neumann-A
Copy link
Contributor

Upstream provides multiple buildsystems with inconsistent naming.

Naming is not inconsistent. It is just taking into account that you cannot have a import library and a static library in the same directory since both would be called zstd.lib. That is why a suffix like _static is required. On every other platform this is not a problem since the library suffix is different libzstd.(a|so).
About pc files not considering _static: Similar reason: Nobody creates pc files on windows except for vcpkg.

@dg0yt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dg0yt commented Feb 2, 2022

Finally, one other drive-by comment: in addition to the binary names, we definitely need an INTERFACE target like @Neumann-A posted in #22822 (comment)

This would be an unofficial::libzstd. I don't want to offer this as recommended usage.

Inventing a new unofficial target can be avoided @Neumann-A 's other proposal
$<IF:$<TARGET_EXISTS:zstd::libzstd_shared>,zstd::libzstd_shared,zstd::libzstd_static>
as already used by ports ktx, libarchive. This would need to go to the usage file.

Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You have modified or added at least one vcpkg.json where a "license" field is missing.
If you feel able to do so, please consider adding a "license" field to the following files:

  • ports/blosc/vcpkg.json
  • ports/boost-iostreams/vcpkg.json
  • ports/elfutils/vcpkg.json
  • ports/libwandio/vcpkg.json
  • ports/qt5-base/vcpkg.json

Valid values for the license field are listed at https://spdx.org/licenses/

Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You have modified or added at least one vcpkg.json where a "license" field is missing.
If you feel able to do so, please consider adding a "license" field to the following files:

  • ports/blosc/vcpkg.json
  • ports/boost-iostreams/vcpkg.json
  • ports/elfutils/vcpkg.json
  • ports/libwandio/vcpkg.json
  • ports/qt5-base/vcpkg.json

Valid values for the license field are listed at https://spdx.org/licenses/

@JackBoosY
Copy link
Contributor

I personally support this modification.

Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You have modified or added at least one vcpkg.json where a "license" field is missing.

If you feel able to do so, please consider adding a "license" field to the following files:

  • ports/blosc/vcpkg.json
  • ports/boost-iostreams/vcpkg.json
  • ports/elfutils/vcpkg.json
  • ports/libwandio/vcpkg.json
  • ports/qt5-base/vcpkg.json

Valid values for the license field can be found in the documentation

@dg0yt
Copy link
Contributor Author

dg0yt commented Feb 11, 2022

Merge conflict resolved. Time for vcpkg team to move.

@JackBoosY
Copy link
Contributor

Ping @ras0219-msft

Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You have modified or added at least one vcpkg.json where a "license" field is missing.

If you feel able to do so, please consider adding a "license" field to the following files:

  • ports/blosc/vcpkg.json
  • ports/boost-iostreams/vcpkg.json
  • ports/elfutils/vcpkg.json
  • ports/libwandio/vcpkg.json
  • ports/qt5-base/vcpkg.json

Valid values for the license field can be found in the documentation

Copy link
Contributor

@PhoebeHui PhoebeHui left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, double confirmed, it also fix the issue in #22817, thank you @dg0yt !

@PhoebeHui PhoebeHui added the info:reviewed Pull Request changes follow basic guidelines label Feb 14, 2022
Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You have modified or added at least one vcpkg.json where a "license" field is missing.

If you feel able to do so, please consider adding a "license" field to the following files:

  • ports/blosc/vcpkg.json
  • ports/boost-iostreams/vcpkg.json
  • ports/elfutils/vcpkg.json
  • ports/libwandio/vcpkg.json
  • ports/qt5-base/vcpkg.json

Valid values for the license field can be found in the documentation

@ras0219-msft
Copy link
Contributor

ras0219-msft commented Feb 15, 2022

After inspecting all references to zstd in ports/, I see ~8 cases where our downstream patches would be simplified by having an INTERFACE alias for zstd_shared to zstd_static (and vice versa). While I don't think there's much value in rev-ing all those ports now to take advantage, I find this to be sufficient evidence that the alias is a good idea and will make our collective lives easier in the future.

I've pushed an additional commit that does two things:

  1. Minor fix to the .pc file to include -pthread if CMake lists it. This removes the need for the qt-base patch entirely (yay!) and is generally a good correctness fix.
  2. Add the flavor-alias. Note that I have not removed the usage file, so we will still recommend to users the more complicated expression which will work correctly outside vcpkg.

Copy link

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You have modified or added at least one vcpkg.json where a "license" field is missing.

If you feel able to do so, please consider adding a "license" field to the following files:

  • ports/blosc/vcpkg.json
  • ports/boost-iostreams/vcpkg.json
  • ports/elfutils/vcpkg.json
  • ports/libwandio/vcpkg.json
  • ports/qt5-base/vcpkg.json

Valid values for the license field can be found in the documentation

Copy link
Contributor

@ras0219-msft ras0219-msft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM if CI passes

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
category:port-bug The issue is with a library, which is something the port should already support info:reviewed Pull Request changes follow basic guidelines
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants